Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:02:43 -0700 From: B&D <NO_SPAMnopsamCOM> Subject: Re: GM to increase SAAB lineup
On 4/21/03 4:19 AM, in article va7ktap0m2ol09nopsam.supernews.com, "Mark Gerritsma" <nl.autonopsamtmfweb.nld> wrote: > B&D <NO_SPAMnopsamCOM> schreef: > >> I am confused: >> GSM and CDMA have nothing to do with one another except they are > both >> standards that are used in second generation phone standards. CDMA >> is a code based standard based upon military technology (spread >> spectrum, resembled broad band noise) and was developed by Qualcomm >> in San Diego. GSM is a time based system that was developed in >> Europe, and does not use the same technology as Qualcomm, it >> resembles pulsed FM signals. > > I know that technology of the two standards differ. CDMA is more > modern then GSM is, which is not surprising because it was developed > later (for commercial use at least). As I understand it part of the > CDMA technology is/will be incorporated in the UMTS standard to > increase bandwidth. Yes, UMTS and CDMA are closely related - the UMTS signal takes up several CDMA channels, though. GSM is the modulation of choice and can offer equivalent caller density, and a number of things related to infrastructure (base stations) and hand sets are a lot easier with GSM than CDMA. I prefer CDMA because it is a bit more flexible, but depending upon what you want to do with it, GSM may end up being a better/cheaper choice! :) > At the time I developed software for Ericsson DECT-systems, I knew all > the ins and outs, but now I sometimes get lost in all the different > abbreviations and which technologies are related and which aren't. It is a rather complex standard-soup. If you aren't in it day in and day out it can quickly be a morass! > >> The main wireless providers in the US, are mostly GSM or will be GSM >> shortly: AT&T, Cingular, T-Mobile >> >> CDMA is used by Verizon and Sprint. > > Do you have just one foreign provider (T-mobile)? In Holland of the 5 > providers only two (and one off them only starting this week) are of > dutch origins. The other three have English, German and French roots. > I actually didn't expect GSM to be so big in the US, considering they > have their own standard with CDMA. I believe that to be the case, and T-mobile is a smaller player. Much of this has to do with acquisition rules forbidding foreign ownership of telecoms companies, or at least above certain amounts. Cingular and T-mobile have a network sharing agreement, so service with one equates to service with another. I understand if you travel to Europe a lot, the phones will work OK there, though I am not 100% certain if it is a special phone, or all phones. GSM is a very popular standard over here, and as soon a AT&T completes their switchover (they are right now about 70% GSM, 30% NADC-TDMA [older obsolete standard]) GSM will be the most popular standard here, if it isn't already. > CDMA as I understand it, is technologically superior to GSM. That on > the other hand is not a guarantee for success. Even though Betamax and > Video2000 were both better than VHS, it was VHS that succeeded in the > end. Funny thing is that for next-generation technologies, GSM is tapped out with the EDGE standard which is 2.5G. Europe will be switching to the UMTS standard for the high data rate and some phone service. They have even allocated some bandwidth for that. >> Europe which is almost pure GSM, will migrate to EDGE, then UMTS. >> Timing will depend upon the solvency of the wireless telecoms firms >> there. > > EDGE doesn't ring any bells for me. Is this another name for GPRS? > Because this technology, that is already in use here, was presented as > the intermediate step. GPRS is in use here as well, but EDGE is a new modulation entirely that is compatible, and is what they call "2.5G", and another intermediate step. I am not sure how much of Europe will be using it, as it was done quickly to give GSM better data competitiveness with CDMA.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
